Break and resume in five minutes. Okay. Sorry. Committee will come to order. Chernow recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. Johnson. Five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general garland, great to see you. Thank you for your service to the nation, and the nation watches as the republicans have no answer for why they want to focus and obsess on hunter biden receiving 2 million for, from burisma after serving on the board that he said he was not qualified to serve on, but yet the saudi arabians gave 2 billion to jared kushner, who conducted middle east strategy for his dad, donald trump. He got 2 billion for something that he is not equipped to do, which is investment banking. And so republicans looking at hunter biden instead of, instead of jared kushner, americans dont understand how that could be. And they also are increasingly alarmed about the fact that the republicans in control of the house only seem to have three objectives. One is to impeach joe biden. Number two is to shut down, is to impeach or get rid of kevin mccarthy, actually, and the third is to shut down government, and a subset of that is to defund the doj and the fbi for trying to hold donald trump accountable. So the American People are watching that, and they also appreciate the fact that you had a distinguished career as a prosecutor and a doj official, as well as 24 years on the bench. You served on the Second Highest Court of the land as a judge with 24 years, the d. C. Circuit court of appeals. We appreciate your service. You were, for seven years, the, the lead you we appreciate your service. You were for seven years the lead you managed that entire office. We thank you for that. You served on the Judicial Council for a couple of years, so you are steeped in the rule of law. You are a judge extraordinaire and as a judge, you never had the occasion to receive a private jet travel to an exotic location by a corporate billionaire, did you . You can put your microphone on. No. You never received an offer to get around on a private jet . No. Did you take vacations at exclusive resorts paid for by a billionaire . I know these are not hypothetical questions. This is really not within my realm of questioning. You were a judge extraordinaire and you know the rules of ethics for judges because your bench had to was covered by a code of conduct. Is that not correct . All of the judges are covered by the court of conduct. You would have never had somebody pay for your godsons tuition to private school. I dont want to answer these hypothetical questions. What i would say is, and ive said this before quite publicly and long ago, i always held myself to the highest standards of ethical responsibility imposed by the code and that is all i can really answer here. It is required judges and justices avoid appearances of impropriety. Is in that correct . Again, i know you are asking this hypothetically and not hypothetically, i follow the code of judicial conduct. Let me ask you this question. The senate, white house, and i sent a letter to you alerting you to the fact we were asking the Judicial Council to refer the matter of Clarence Thomas being in violation of the ethics in Government Act to the Justice Department, and after that, representative cortez along with myself and others requested that you take that matter up directly. Have you responded to either one of those letters, and if not, why not . What action have you taken pursuant to those letters . I assume if you sent the letter, we have it and i will speak to the office of legislative affairs about where it is at this point. The time is expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from california. Good day, mr. Attorney general. It is good for you to leave the chief justice in that group before each of us speak because he would have heard all of that. I want to thank you personally for your office and engagement. Obviously a vast amount of litigation that is one of the many, many jobs that falls at your feet. One of the jobs that falls at our feet here, we are watchdogs of the executive branch. You have previously said that you are not congresss attorney and not the president s attorney and i am assuming you are neither our prosecutor, defense attorney, neither the president s prosecutor or defense attorney, which is why todays investigation does deal with the fact if you are not by definition the president s prosecutor, but we have an obligation to see whether or not the president or a member of his family or in concert with the president s activities did, in fact, need to be overseen, admonished, or prosecuted. I have a couple of questions for you. One of them, you have not said this very much today, but you often say, i cannot comment on that because it is an Ongoing Investigation. When we ask for information, you say it is the policy, not the law, but the policy not to provide information related to an Ongoing Investigation. So far i am on track, correct . I think ive said more than it is just policy. The letters we sent trays to the constitutional powers, et cetera, but in general, i am in court with what you are saying. One of the challenges we face, just a matter of weeks ago a federal judge found the actions of now special prosecutor to be so outside what he could agree to that he pushed back on a plea settlement and nullified it and said the u. S. Attorney going back. In light of that, dont you think its appropriate for that portion to be considered a pre Ongoing Investigation, and for congress to legitimately look at the activities leading up to that failed plea bargain, rather than wait until weeks, months, or years from now and the case has fully settled . If you would give me a chance. First, i dont agree with the characterization of what happened in the plea. The district judge performed her obligations under rule 11 to determine whether the parties were in agreement, to what each had agreed to appear they determined they had not. The plea fell apart. There has been another prosecution, which leads to the second thing. Mr. Weiss is in the ongoing prosecution on the very matter you are talking about okay, but mr. Attorney general, if we believe that a pattern of behavior is occurring relative to the investigation of hunter biden particularly and including while he lived in the Vice President s home, while he operated, comingled with the Vice President , and even today as he travels with the president. In light of that, can you agree that, in fact, it should be reasonable for us to look at a number of items including, and one that i want your answer on even though i know we have limited time, mr. Weiss supposedly had the ability to bring a prosecution anywhere and explicitly has an opportunity, however are you concerned and should we have the right to look into the fact that political appointees in california and in the district of columbia refused to in fact cooperate with him and those in that investigation he was charged with doing in delaware, which flowed into their jurisdictions . Isnt that an example of political appointees of the present, that their decision not to cooperate with him creates at least an appearance of political interference with the investigation of the president , his son, and possibly activities related to the president . I am happy to answer this question in the hypothetical, but not the specifics because i have stayed out of this matter. In hypothetical, it is the normal process of the department that if a u. S. Attorney wants to bring a case in another district, it is perfectly appropriate. They do that in order to determine what the policies are. Practices have been in that district. A u. S. Attorney in another district does not have the authority to deny another u. S. Attorneys ability to go forward and i have assured mr. Weiss that he would have the authority one way or the other and i think mr. Weiss letters completely reflect that. Gentleman, the time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Welcome, mr. Attorney general. We meet today at a momentous time in our history. The country is about to go through a great trial. By this i do not mean any of the trials of the former president , but rather a trial that propositions we are committed to the rule of law and no one is above the law. It is a proposition well known around the world because it is the one essential agreement and all democracies. We have all professed our belief in this principle but it has never been truly tested, not like today. In this committee, we are engaged in a portion of that trial. The chairman would abuse the power of this committee by trying to interfere in the prosecutions of donald trump, by trying to use the committees power of subpoena to compel criminal discovery and making the committee a kind of criminal defense firm for the former president. In doing so, the chairman would establish a very different proposition. Through mr. Jordans actions he would establish the principle the rule of law should apply to almost everyone, just not the leader of his party. According to this alternate proposition, if you were the president of the United States and you lose your reelection, you can violate the law and constitution to try to stay in power, and if you are successful, maybe you get to be president for life and if you fail, there is no repercussion. This proposition is well known to the world and it is called dictatorship. Mr. Jordan hopes to camouflage his assault in the rule of law by falsely claiming donald trump is the victim of unequal justice and hunter biden is beneficiary. It is a claim as transparently political as it is devoid of any factual basis. It is cynical based on the belief the American People cannot discern fact from fiction , but i am betting on america. History has shown those who bet against her are rarely successful and more than often end up covered in shame. I believe in the rule of law and i thank you, mr. Attorney general, for defending it. Lets turn to the false claims asserted by the former president and some in this committee. On sunday, the former president appeared on a National News sunday program and was asked about four indictments and 91 counts facing him. His response was, biden political indictments. You said to the attorney general you said to the attorney general, indict him. Mr. Attorney general, i want to give you a chance to respond. Was the president telling the truth or lying when he said President Biden told you to indict him . No one has told me to indict and in this case the decision to indict was made by the special counsel. That statement the president made was false . I am just going to say again, no one has told me who should be indicted in any matter like this and the decision about indictment was made by mr. Smith. Let me ask you this question about the prosecution of hunter biden. The prosecutor, mr. Weiss, was appointed not i joe biden, but appointed in the first instance by donald trump. Is that correct . Thats correct. He was continued in that position, was he not . He was continued, yes. Could you imagine the cry you would hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle if you removed him from that position . Could you imagine the claims that you had removed the prosecutor who was diligently investigating hunter biden . Could you imagine the outrage they would have expressed . I can say during my confirmation hearing discussed with many senators on that side of the aisle their desire and actual insistence that mr. Weiss be continued to have responsibility for that matter and i promised, and i sat at my confirmation hearing, that he would be permitted to stay and i would not interfere. Mr. Attorney general, that was exactly the right decision. That was the right decision to give the American People the confidence that even a prosecutor chosen by the former president would continue the investigation into the son of the current president. That was exactly the right decision. Exactly the right decision. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have been screaming if it were otherwise. But their attack on you is completely devoid of fact, of principle, but i appreciate you doing the right thing for the department of justice and more importantly, for the American People. I yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. Elon musk was a democrat who admittedly supported biden but became a critic of the administration and exposed the sensors are censorship regime. The doj has opened not one, but two investigations into elon musk. Mark zuckerberg spent 400 million in 2020 tilting the elections secretly for democrats. No investigations whatsoever. To the American Public, these look like mafia tactics. We look the other way. You get in our way, we punish you. The American Public sees what these tactics are and i want to direct your attention to a video here that we are going to play. Obviously that is a significant matter. It is an ongoing criminal investigation and i will not comment on an ongoing criminal investigation. Where the pipe bombs operable . Again, it is an ongoing criminal investigation and i cannot comment. We know this is a very active , Ongoing Investigation but there are restrictions. We find your department, so you need to provide that. Respectfully it is not an issue of classification. It is an issue of commenting on ongoing criminal investigations, which is something that by Longstanding Department policy we are restricted from doing. The last administration strengthened those policies. We fund you, so lets move on. I will not violate the rule of law and comment on an investigation that is ongoing. Peter navarro was indicted for contempt of congress. Arent you, in fact, contempt of congress when you give us this answer . This is an answer appropriate at a press conference, not appropriate when we are asking questions. We are the committee responsible for your creation, for your existence of your department. You cannot continue to give us these answers. Arent you in fact in contempt of congress when you refuse to answer . Congressman, i have the greatest respect for congress, for the constitution, and the laws of the United States. The protection of pending investigations on an Ongoing Investigation, as i briefly discussed in another dialog a few moments ago, goes back to the separation of powers which give to the executive branch the Sole Authority to conduct prosecutions. It is our requirement to do process and respect for those under investigation and protection of their civil rights. With all due respect with all due respect to that, the investigation was ongoing and that didnt stop congress from getting answers. You are getting in the way of our constitutional duty. You are citing the constitution. I will fight it. It is our constitutional duty to do oversight. In the video, that was your answer to me two years ago. When i asked how many agents of the government were present on january 5th and january 6th and how many went into the capitol, can you answer that now . I dont know the answer to that question. Last time, you dont know how many there were or there were none . If there were any, i dont know how many. I think you might have just perjured yourself that you dont know how many. You dont know if there were any . I have no personal knowledge of this matter. Youth had two years to find out. By the way, yesterday you indicted ray apps. Is and that a wonderful coincidence . On a misdemeanor meanwhile you are sending grandmas to prison. You are sending people away for years for a felony. This guy says go into the capitol and hes directing people into the capitol. Hes at the site of the first breach. Youve got all of the guns on him, 10 videos and it is an indictment for a misdemeanor . The American Public isnt buying it. I yield the rest of my time. We will let the gentleman yeah. Go ahead. In discovery in the cases filed with respect to january 6th, the Justice Department prosecutors provided whatever information they had about the question you are asking. With respect to mr. Epps, the fbi said he was not an employee or informant of the fbi. Mr. Epps has been charged and there is a proceeding going on today i believe on that subject. The charge is a joke. I yield to the chairman. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. Mr. Attorney general, my colleague said you should be held in contempt of congress and that is quite a rich because the guy leaving the hearing right now, mr. Jordan, is about 500 days into evading his subpoena about 500 days, so if we are going to talk about contempt of congress, lets get real. Are you serious . Jim jordan, a witness to one of the greatest crimes ever committed in america, a crime more prosecutions have occurred than any crime committed in america refuses to help his country and we get lectured about subpoena compliance . Jim jordan wont even honor a lawful subpoena . Are you kidding me . Are you kidding me . There is no credibility on that side. Mr. Attorney general, you are serious. They are not. You are decent. They are not. You are fair. They are not. I welcome you to the law firm of insurrection llp, where they work every single day on behalf of one client, donald trump. They do that at the expense of millions of americans who need the government to stay open, who want their kids safe in their schools and they want to see ukraine in the fight so we dont have to help russia. That is the expense of this nonsense, this clown show. They have real responsibilities that affect real americans. The difference between one side that believes in governing and one side that believes in ruling. Youve tried to comply with the committee. In fact, last week one of your special agents came here for an interview, brought his lawyer, and was told he couldnt have his lawyer present. Mr. Jordan tells us about the constitution , wouldnt afford one of your employees one of the most basic constitutional rights, to have a lawyer present. In fact, they threatened to call Capitol Police. Are you familiar with that standoff that occurred last week, mr. Attorney general . Generally, yes. Your office sent a letter detailing that you werent willing to comply. I would like to send that to the record. Objection. Who appointed mr. Weiss . Mr. Trump was the last who appointed mr. Weiss to u. S. Attorney and i appointed him to special counsel. Who initially appointed john durham . I believe also appointed by president trump. Mr. Barr appointed him as special counsel. Again, these guys are so upset Donald Trumps appointed prosecutors arent doing enough of the questioning donald trump wants them to do, so either they are following the law or they are not as corrupt and not willing to go as far as they think donald trump deserves. That is what they are asking to happen here. Also, doesnt it seem they want it both ways when it comes to the special counsel . A lot of questions suggest the special counsel should be independent but when they didnt like the direction of the special counsel, you are asked why you did it interfere more or involve yourself more or investigate more. Do you get the sense that you are stuck here . When i make an appointment for special counsel or prosecutor, the appointment is without respect what the outcome of the case will be. Your office has made a number of reforms targeting foreign nationals, but those reforms have not been put into law. 702 is one of the best weapons we have to go after fentanyl. Can you tell us if you would support putting some of those reforms into law so we dont have to live the administration to see if it would follow . I would. 702 allows us the greatest, at least the Justice Department, the greatest amount of intelligence we receive about dangerous threats in the United States. From foreign nationals. From foreign nationals. I am quite aware and sensitive to the concerns and the queries. That is why i have extended some of those mr. Barr had begun in his term and they put further once in place that have led to a dramatic reduction in the number of queries and dramatic reduction in the number of noncompliant queries. I believe those are appropriate reforms and i would be in favor of codifying them, yes. Thank you, mr. Attorney general, and thank you for coming in doing something the chairman is unwilling to do. The chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. Mr. Attorney general, on august 11th, 2023 , you appointed david weiss for the district of delaware and special counsel overseeing the investigation into hunter biden. I dont think the question has been asked yet, why did you choose to appoint him as special counsel . I am permitted to give an explanation, as the one i gave to congress. Mr. Weiss requested it and i promise to give him the resources he need. It reached the stage of the investigation we thought it would be appropriate and under those extraordinary circumstances, thought the Public Interest would be served by making him special counsel. How did mr. Weiss emerge . Who recommended him . How was it presented to you that this would be the best person to be the special counsel . I am not going to get into internal discussions. Mr. Weiss asked he be appointed to special counsel and i granted that request it made him special counsel , but i am not going to get into internal deliberations in the Justice Department. You said earlier you had no discussions with the white house or the president in regard to that . No suggestions came from any other level of government . Nothing came from the white house. Thats right. In august of 2023, the article claimed mr. Weiss worked with hunter biden and Hunter Bidens late brother, beau biden. Were you aware that there was a relationship with the hunter biting family . Im not aware. You were unaware of that . Im not aware. The article claims they knew each other. There was a relationship there, but you were unaware of this . Attorneys who are in practice certainly got to know people. It is difficult for attorneys in other parts of the country not to get to know other attorneys. You said mr. Weiss had the ultimate authority over the investigation into the president s son. You stand by that statement, im sure . Im sorry . That in fact, there was the ultimate authority there with mr. Weiss to make determinations on that case . You mean still as special counsel . Yes. That has been determined. According to whistleblower testimony, leslie wolf objected to search warrants President Bidens guesthouse and had access to a storage unit containing the documents from the vacated office of the law firm. Is leslie wolfe still employed by the department of justice . I am not singling out individuals. That has led to serious threats of our safety. The supervisor of this investigation was mr. Weiss. He is responsible for the decisions that are made. Excuse me. Many of the things you are saying occurred during the Previous Administration. I apologize. Okay, well there was absolutely an a discussion by lesley wolf that if there were investigators that got involved, there would be issues. Do you still believe that the entire investigation has moved in the correct direction . Mr. Weiss was a longstanding career prosecutor appointed by president trump. He has an outstanding reputation and i have confidence he will proceed as appropriate. At the end of this investigation, he will submit a public report, just like mr. Durham. He will be available for you to ask him questions about why he did various things that were done. I yield the remaining time, mr. Chairman. David weiss wrote senator graham and set ive not requested special counsel designation. August 11th, you announce he is now the special counsel. What happened in those 31 days . As i said publicly several days before my announcement, i think three days, mr. Weiss asked to become special counsel and explained it reached a stage of the investigation he thought that appropriate. What stage is that . He had reached a stage . The beginning stage . Middle stage . End stage . Keep hiding the ball stage . Go back to the videotape i said im not permitted to discuss Ongoing Investigations. Is and that convenient. Something changed from july 10th to august 11th. I think two whistleblowers came forward and a judge called yes on the plea deal you tried to get past him. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california. The House Judiciary Committee has a responsibility of helping to ensure the rule of law. Unfortunately this committees chairman ignored a bipartisan congressional subpoena. The horrible precedents set by this chairman has damaged the credibility of all congressional committees and information from witnesses, and damaged the rule of law. Attorney general garland, i thank you for your Public Service and for being here today. I would like to start by showing a video and then i will ask you some questions about that day. Hey brother, were on the ground here. We got boots on the ground. Multiple capitol entries. Multiple capitol entries. [ crowd chanting ] Capitol Police we are still taking metal, sharpen objects, missiles, bottles, and rocks. Hey, get down this is now effectively a riot. Attorney general garland, the department of justice charged 1100 defendants in connection with the attack on the capitol, correct . Yes, thats correct. The people who showed up on january 6th attacking the nations capitol were supporters of donald trump. They attacked the capitol to stop congress from certifying the fact donald trump lost the election. Those two facts were so horrible, some in the right wing media, some republican members of congress could not handle that, so they made up conspiracy theories. In fact, donald trump called january 6th a Beautiful Day and said the people who showed up had love in their hearts. He said it was a tourist visit and some republican said there were no weapons used. Attorney general garland, were weapons used in the attack on january 6th . Yes. In the video you already saw some of the weapons used and there are many, many more hours of video. Another conspiracy theory, somehow the fbi orchestrated the attack so i will go through cases that have gone through sentencing. Biggs was sentenced with 17 years in prison for judicious conspiracy and other attacks on the capitol. Have you seen any shred of evidence that he was an fbi agent . No. In fact, he was a member of the proud boys. In court, he stated, quote, they saw themselves as Donald TrumpsArmy Fighting to keep their leader in power no matter what the law had to say about it. On september 4th, joe biggs stated he is confident trump will pardon him. He said, quote, we went there like he asked. Stewart rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison for the attack on the nations capitol. Have you seen any shred of evidence that Stewart Rhodes was an fbi agent . No. In fact, he was one of the founders of the oath keepers and an ricoh tutorial was sentenced to 22 years for the attack on the nations capitol. Have you seen any evidence he was an fbi agent . He was not an fbi agent. In fact, he was the leader of the proud boys. On january 6th, donald trump supporter showed up because he told them to. He marched the capitol because he told them to. That is the truth and that is how history is going to be recorded. Thank you for prosecuting those who attacked our nations capitol. The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have a slide up here. In march of 2022, mr. Weiss was denied the ability to bring charges against hunter biden and the district of columbia. In april of that same year, you testified before the Senate Appropriations committee mr. Weiss was free to run the investigation without interference from the doj. According to the whistleblower, there was a meeting in october of 2022 or mr. Weiss that he was not the deciding official on whether or not charges were filed and we know that because weve got handwritten notes from irs whistleblowers and it was confirmed in an email. In january, mr. Weiss was denied the opportunity to bring charges in the Central District of california. You testified before the senate Judiciary Committee that he had full authority, that mr. Weiss confirmed that to us in a letter in june and had been granted full authority over this matter, but then he backed up. In june, he said well, just kidding. My charging authority is geographically limited to my home district in delaware and you appoint him as special counsel, so why the heck has his story changed so many times over the course of these investigations . Congressman, ive seen the letters and ive read them quite carefully. They are consistent with each other and i urge everyone watching this on television to look at those three letters. There is no change in the story. You have said publicly that he had ultimate authority prior to the appointment as special counsel. Ive explained this repeatedly here. I have explained this in another proceeding. I said that mr. Weiss would have the authority to bring a case to any jurisdiction in which he wanted to and mr. Weiss has confirmed that he would have that authority. I explained if he had to bring a case from another jurisdiction as a matter of mechanics it would require me or a delegatee of mine to sign a 515 order. That is very common. Mr. Attorney general, forgive me for a second, but that when you say you have ultimate he wrote a letter on your behalf in june. I have ultimate authority. This is prior to the designation of special counsel. You should be able to go wherever you want to. Sir, did he file charges in the district of South Carolina . He would not have that ability, correct . He would have to go through that u. S. Attorney. All he would have to do is ask me for 515 authority and i would sign it right away, just like he asked me to be special counsel. So he didnt have ultimate authority . I promised he would have the authority. But he did not have the authority. If you were denied the ability to bring charges in march of 2022 in the district of columbia, if he were to be denied the ability to bring charges in the district of california, thats not full authority. These u. S. Attorneys operate as gatekeepers, so thats not full authority to do much of anything. Do you know what is remarkable to me . We sit here and look at this and his story has changed so many times. Do you know whose story hasnt changed . The emails that confirm that he said, i am not the deciding person on whether charges are filed. Do you know what the response back from his colleague was at work . Yes, youve covered it all, gary. That is consistent. What mr. Weiss has done is this shell game by saying he has authority, he doesnt have authority. The gatekeepers in the district of columbia and in the Central District of california, they would have the gatekeeping authority on whether charges are brought in their jurisdictions. Those words have no meaning. Gatekeepers, et cetera. Mr. Weiss never said he was denied authority. I promised he would have that authority. I do not see any consistency here. I was not at the meeting that mr. Shapley was referring to. I know what i guaranteed and i know what mr. Weiss has said i guaranteed. I yield the balance of my time. Its a simple question. If he already had it, why would he need it . On august 11th, you said he would continue to have the authority to bring charges. Where, when, and however he decides. How can he continue to have a power you just gave him . That is the fundamental question. I tried to answer he had the authority and continued to have the authority. Did you tell him he could get 515 status ahead of time . I mean, i made it absolutely clear when . I made it clear from the beginning and my statements to the senate that he would have the authority to make any decisions he wanted to. The time has expired. The gentle lady has five minutes. Thank you for your Tremendous Service to this country. As someone who was trapped in the gallery on january 6th, i have to admit, its hard to look at the video and imagine that happened at our u. S. Capitol and i am grateful you have lead this nation to accountability to all those involved, including the former president. Youve done so with full and complete attention to the facts with a team around you that focuses on thorough investigation and with a Clear Mission you have stated over and over again despite the asked and answered on the other side, that the Justice Department works for the American People. This is a night and day transformation from the Justice Department that was constantly used by donald trump for his own political gain and it is my firm belief that we have to hold those accountable who tried to destroy our country, including the former president or we risk losing the country altogether, so i thank you for your steadfast leadership. It is sad this committee has been transformed into a soapbox for political conspiracy theorists instead of focusing on the really important issues the American People care about, so that is what i will try to do. I will focus on the critical crisis of reproductive freedom and the efforts to strip reproductive freedom from people across this country. As you know a decades long project of the extreme right wing materialized last year when five republican justices overturned 50 years of precedent that established the constitutional right to abortion. As one of the one in four women in this country who has had an abortion and felt compelled to share my story for decades because i saw the attacks on the right to abortion and what it would do for poor women, for black, brown, and indigenous people, i spoke out and shared my story. In the 22 states republicans control the legislature, all have moved to restrict reproductive rights. More than 25 million women of childbearing age live in states Abortion Access has been curtailed and in washington state, the Seattle Times reported we are seeing increasing numbers of abortion patients not only from neighboring idaho, which we knew we would see, but from other Southern States these restrictions arent enforced. I seek unanimous consent to enter this times article into the record. She traveled 2000 miles secretly for her abortion. Objection. As our fundamental freedoms are threatened by maga republicans in congress, we trust the doj will initiate investigations and File Lawsuits to protect reproductive rights with respect to mifepristone, what has the department done to protect access to this very safe abortion drug that women can take at home safely and to end a pregnancy . The fda authorized the use of mifepristone as safe and effective and it did it back in 2000. That has been a challenge for the District Court. We defended the fda in that matter. There was an appeal to the circuit court, which narrowed the District Courts opinion in some ways but allowed it to go forward and others. We have filed a certain petition and it has been granted, i think, in the United States. My home state of washington has one of the highest rates of affiliate religious affiliated estates. In 2021 there were several counties lacking one secular hospital. This is an issue under the labor act when patients in need of abortion care as lifesaving treatment are denied services under the hospitals policies, what is the department doing to enforce the law mandating that every hospital that receives medicare funds provide, quote, necessarily stabilizing treatment to patients including abortion care . It expressly condemns any state law and for that reason we have filed a lawsuit in idaho and one in the District Court with respect to an idaho law that impinged on the rights granted. We have filed i think a number of statements and others are looking at where it would be appropriate to intervene. You are on record saying states must remain free to seek that care in states it is legal. I thank you for that. Can you briefly discuss the progress made by the task force and doj to ensure pregnant people retain their right to travel . Look, my view about the right to travel is the same as justice kavanaugh. He said this is not a particularly difficult question. The right to travel is a constitutional right and it allows women in the state that bars abortion to travel and obtain an abortion in a state in which it is permitted. Thank you, attorney general. We appreciate your service. The gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes. I would like to go back briefly. Your remarks regarding before the senate when you were confirmed and your promise regarding mr. Weiss, can you explain to us in a little more detail who you promised you would keep mr. Weiss on this case . To whom what that promise made . A number of senators in my meetings with them asked me to make that promise. That was discussed in my interchange with the senator from tennessee, i believe. Did that promise lead you to believe that even if mr. Weiss displayed a level of incompetence that you would be precluded from asking him to step down or precluded from replacing him . Look, when someone asks me to make this appointment, they didnt ask me depending on what the outcome was. Mr. Weiss has made his appointment decisions and mr. Weiss is an experienced federal prosecutor with extensive experience and with sufficient credibility to be appointed by president trump. I have no grounds for interfering here. You have an answer the question. The answer was, really, what level of incompetence displayed by a prosecutor under your control would it take for you to make a change, but lets move on. The level of incompetence i am referring to ill just read this to you. This was the same mr. Weiss that headed an investigation trashed by whistleblowers and said the investigation had been fixed from the outside. The same mr. Weiss who said agents were obstructing their efforts to compromise tipoffs to the biden team on planned searches, the same weiss who reportedly allowed the statute of limitations to run out on hunters tax offenses, the same weiss who did not indict on major tax felonies and cut a plea deal and brushed aside a felony gun charge. The same weiss caused a federal judge to trash a sweeping immunity grant, language the prosecutor even admitted had never been seen in a previous plea deal. There is a list of what i would suggest under many peoples definition of incompetence. I am saying that all of these are allegations. I dont know what the facts of them are. As i have explained, i stayed out of this investigation. I was not present at any of the meetings discussed. Some of the meetings occurred under the Previous Administration, where mr. Weiss was assigned to the matter by the previous Justice Department and i am not commenting on them. That is too bad. A memo is generally issued when they start these things out. Who issued the scope of investigation memo to mr. Weiss . Was it done when he was initially appointed to take on the biden case . Is there a scope of investigation memo . There is a scope of investigation with respect to the special counsel and that has been publicly transmitted to the chairman and the senate Judiciary Committee. Who wrote it . Who decided what should be within the scope of the investigation . Im sorry . Who decided what i decided what would be in the scope if you compare that to other special counsels. It is modeled off the format we have used in the past. Not only in this administration, but the previous one. In your remarks delivered on august 11th of this year concerning the appointment of david weiss as special counsel, you say upon considering his request as well as, quote, extraordinary circumstances related to this matter, end quote, could you tell us what those circumstances were . These are your remarks from august 11th. It says, tuesday this week, mr. Weiss advised me and i am quoting from your memo, his investigation has reached a stage he should continue his work as special counsel and he asked to be so appointed. Upon considering his request as well as the extraordinary circumstances relating to this matter, i have belief that it is within the best Public Interest to appoint him as special counsel. What were those extraordinary circumstances you were talking about . The appointment by mr. Barr with respect to mr. Jerome, he uses those phrases. Absent special counsel regulation, i said as much as i can say without discussing matters relating to the impending investigation. I cannot discuss the pending investigation for the reasons ive said. Thank you. The gentleman from california is recognized. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Garland, i want to welcome you to this hearing and i want to turn our attention to something interesting, the most important thing on main street today in my district, drug addiction, narcotics, and trafficking fentanyl. I want to quote you from june 23rd of this year. Quote, the u. S. Government continues to do everything in our power to disrupt sentinel trafficking and to prevent more communities from being devastated by the fentanyl epidemic. We are targeting every step of the movement, manufacturing and the sale of fentanyl from start to finish. Mr. Garland, i believe the only thing the cartel leaders fear is a United States prison. I want to thank you for the good job you recently expedited l chabots son. Do you have plans to extradite additional cartel leaders from other parts of the world to the United States to face u. S. Justice and u. S. Prison systems . I dont want to get into the discussion. I want to have diplomatic discussions over the matter. We have indicted the sons. How many are there . Maybe four more . Maybe five. Im not sure exactly. They have been publicly indicted. The apprehension of these individuals requires cooperation from foreign countries, especially mexico, since this is where a lot of those cartels operate. Would you say mexico is cooperating in terms of working with your office to bring the cartel leaders to justice . They have obviously worked with us with respect to a video. His apprehension led to the deaths of a significant number of mexican marines. Video of people fighting back with 50 caliber machine guns. Marines had to use black hawk helicopters. U. S. Marines, or mexican . Mexican marines. Mexican marines played an Important Role in the apprehension of the cartel leaders. Would you characterize cooperation right now with mexicans as being good . Or not really . I would say cooperation can always be better. We have an enormous problem with respect to fentanyl coming from mexico and its manufacturer there, based on the precursors coming from china, and the cartel leaders. How can we as members of Congress Help you make sure other countries have stronger cooperating relationships with us . How can we make sure they cooperate to the full ability . I appreciate the request. I will have to think about it some more. I have personally traveled to mexico twice. How important is your job when it comes to forwarding fighting fentanyl . Very important. You work with us to ensure we put guardrails around us and Safety Measures to ensure those investigative weapons are not turned against u. S. Citizens. Absolutely. 702 is a crucial tool, but like all tools, it has to be properly controlled and we would be happy to work with congress to make sure the Civil Liberties are protected. My last minute, i wanted to turn to the antitrust area, the European Union, and the Digital Marketing act. Its designed to protect consumers in europe, yet it looks like most of their focus is on american firms. No European Companies or other foreign operators in the European Union are being targeted. It looks like its only american firms operating in europe and it looks like the doj is working to support the efforts of the europeans and implementing the Digital Marketing act. I have 18 seconds. I will submit a written question to your office, but my focus, my interest is making sure american jobs and American Companies are successful and that they are not in any way hampered from working overseas. Okay. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I yield my time. The gentleman from new jersey is acknowledged. Americans were promised they were getting a focus Law Enforcement. I had my doubts back then and the last two years have more than confirmed those fears. Never in my life what i have thought i would see such a politicized doj. Never in my life what i have thought i would see such a department of justice that didnt obey their own rules. Never in my life did i think i would see the egregious investigations conducted under your watch, or the blatant disregard of the First Amendment by fbi field offices under your watch. Never in my life did i think i would see our great doj turn into a politicized weapon to be wielded by an investigation to attack political rivals. I still hold thousands of hard working staff with high regard, but unfortunately there are some in the department in my mind that have portrayed their oaths and for that, you must be held accountable. I hold you accountable for the labeling of parents as domestic terrorists standing up for the proper education of their own children. I hold you accountable for the anticatholic memo. Imagine sending agents undercover to Roman Catholic churches because they were supposedly terrorists. I hold you accountable for unleashing a special counsel with a history of botched investigations on our current president s political rival. The department under your leadership, i am sorry to say and i am sorry to say has become an enforcement arm of the Democratic National committee. If there is a perceived threat to the democratic party, this doj attacks every single time but when there are actionable threats against conservatives, this doj stays put. Protesters outside violent protesters outside the Supreme Court, a justices home, unpunished. Attacks on prolife centers, unpunished. The twotiered system of justice is clear and the buck stops with the man in charge and that man is you. The actions of the doj are on you. The decline of the Americans Trust in our federal Law Enforcement is on you. The botched political weaponization of the doj is on you. Attorney general, i need a simple yes or no to the following and just a simple yes or no, do you agree traditional catholics are violent extremists , yes or no . Let me answer what you said in that long list. I control the time. You asked me a substantial number of things. Attorney general, through the chair i ask you, do you agree traditional catholics are violent extremists . Catholics i go to church. Yes or no. Someone wi yes or no. I the idea that someone with my family background would discriminate against any religion is so outrageous, so absurd periods mr. Attorney general it was your fbi that did this. Your and ei was sending, we have the emails that were sending undercover agents into catholic churches. Both i and the fbi said that we have been appalled by the memo. Are they extremist or not, attorney general . I think thats why are they extremist or not, on attorney general . I am asking a simple question, say no. They are not extremist, no periods was anyone fired for ti drafting and circulating the anticatholic memo. You have in front of you the inspection of divisions or just tell me yes or no. We do not have time. I do not know the answer. Do you believe that parents a attending School Board Meetings should parents who go to School Board Meetings who are very vocal about their kids education, should they be classified as domestic terrorist . Of course not. My my memo made clear vigorous objections to policies in schools so that is no. The president this week accused you, not the president himself it was the staff and the wall of mishandling the Hunter Biden Probe do you agree . Yes are no. It was in a wall street journal article periods do i agree with the wall street journal . Yes, the information they released i said you botched the probe. I think i have dealt with the hunter biden investigation mr. Chairman, i u. Yield my remaining time to you. Thank you. The gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. Thank you attorney general garland for your decades of service to the department of justice, to our country and the constitution, it has been honorable service, and i think l the American Public as a whole recognizes that. I was struck by your opening ea Crystal Clear your fidelity to the u. S. Constitution and the rule of law and the reaffirmation of the attorney general is not the president s lawyer. This is a Welcome Change from the rhetoric and actions of some your predecessors in the last administration when they appeared before us. As we all know, the Justice Department works for the American People er to prosecute crimes uphold the rule of law and individual rights and keep our country safe. Congress has a legitimate duty of oversight. The blatantly political and misleading rhetoric, which we have been subjected to today, undermines the seriousness of this d committees work and ultimately the legitimate it legitimacy and core values of american institution. It is painfully obvious for anyone who cares about the Co Institution that our colleagues have called this hearing to once again defend the indefensible actions of the disgraced, twice impeached and now repeatedly indicted in ic multiple jurisdictions, former president. And to distract from their inability to perform the most basic function of congress, to they are baselessly accusing the u. S. Department of justice of bias against the former president and his allies. It is important to note that those who are noisily and es shamelessly trying to subvert our Justice System are the same ones who have both the most to fear from those Ongoing Investigations and the most to e gain politically and personallyr from impeding them. Ve as others have noted these attempts include trying to defund the office of special counsel, jack smiths office altogether. I, like so many americans, find this behavior contemptible and far beneath of what we should expect from our countrys leaders. Mr. Attorney general, why is it so important for both upholding the rule of law and maintaining public trust that art justices be able to conduct investigations of well doing free from political interference . The criminal law has can impose sanctions on people it can take away their liberty ed that means due process has to be followed during investigations and partisan rt consideration does not play a role. Civil liberties and civil rights are protected. At the only way that can happen is if prosecutors are permitted to go about their work without any external impermissible interventions or considerations. Nsthank you. I did want to er take the opportunity since this is a oversight hearing to conduct actual oversight. Th there was an important topic in her testimony, safeguarding the right to vote. During the Previous Administration i asked Pa Department officials in this room what actions they were taking on this critical issue and they could not answer me. De could you describe the efforts o that your department of justice is taking to protect the right to vote, a fundamental pillar r of our democracy. Yes. Congress in the form of the Voting Rights act and the civilu rights act, authorized the d department to bring cases and to enforce the constitution of the United States with respect to the right to vote. As im sure you know, in the Shelby County case, the Supreme Court n eliminated one of our tools, section 5 of the Voting Rights act. We retain section 2 which the Supreme Court endorsed in ha its last term. We have brought cases in a number of jurisdictions, where we felt that state laws unconstitutionally impinged on the right to vote. We have supported private parties when they have brought , those cases, particularly in s redistricting cases that violated the resolution requirement of section 2. We have a task force with respect to threats against election workersth because threatening election workers and stopping th them from doing their work is a significant way in which the right to vote can be impinged. That in pennsylvania during the last president ial election. Pr we really appreciate all those efforts. I find this hearing very of disturbing and that we have th elected officials misleading the thpublic, attacking the foundations of our democracy in trying to so distrust in one of the most critical pillars of u. Democracy, the u. S. Department of justice. It is unacceptable and unamerican. Mr. Chair, i seek unanimous consent to enter into the record a fact sheet of the Department Justice work under attorney general garland to safeguard americans to vote and to protect our officials and workers. The committee will be in order. The committee will be in order. The gentleman from virginia is recognized for five minutes. On august 11, 2023, you appointed mr. Weiss special counsel. He wrote a letter to the senate Judiciary Committee were you cited external circumstances requiring the appointment. You avoided answering the question when mr. Benson asked, i will give you another chance, what were those circumstances . I am afraid i have to give the same answer i gave before. He thought that they had reached the stage where they thought it would be appropriate i promised him that i would give him any resource he needed and what he asked for. To go further lets talk about the authority. Back on march 1st, you told the senate Judiciary Committee that mr. Weiss had the full authority to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he felt it was necessary. On june 7, mr. Weiss wrote to the Judiciary Committee stating he had been granted ultimate authority over the matter including responsibility of deciding where, when to file charges. By june 30th he changed his tune and said his charging authority was geographically limited. It would be up to the u. S. Attorneys office, and then you to determine whether he can partner on the case. If not, he can request special attorney status from the ag pursuant to, and he was assured if necessary he would be granted 515 authority in dc Central District of california where any other district charges can be brought. Let me ask, is there some distinct authority known as special attorney status . Sorry . Is a some distinct Legal Authority known as special attorney status . Section 1 515 allows the attorney to sign in order to authorize the prosecutor to work in another district. If you already decided he had full authority, why did you feel it was necessary to sign that document . Im sorry . Why did mr. Weiss feel he needed the extra authority if you conveyed to him that he would have the authority. You will have to speak with mr. Weiss. I think his letters are clear that he understood he would have the Necessary Authority and no use u. S. Attorney could block it. We asked earlier about his request for this authority. We need to know who he spoke to about this authority and when. Before he asked you in august, he had discussions with others. Who did he discuss special Counsel Authority with and when did he do that . I am not going to discuss internal deliberations in the department. Mr. Weiss would have the authority that he needed. The moment he asked for the authority, i gave it to him. Did he discuss it with the Deputy Attorney general . I am not going to get into a discussion of deliberations. That is on a valid constitutional objection. That is a valid constitutional objection. It has to do with the ability of the Justice Department to do its Communications Just as your deliberations with your staff and other members are protected by the constitution. Detailing who have conversations and when does not implicate the internal deliberations of the department. It is simply detailing who and when does not implicate those i am not going to get into the internal discussions of the department or who talked to who about what. Mr. Weiss told this committee he well understood his ability to bring a case wherever he wanted and i said he had that ability. Do you think the extra ordinary circumstances that you cited in the appointment had anything to do with the june 22nd and july 19 testimony of whistleblowers special agents shapely and sealer . I dont think it has anything to do with mr. Shapely, no. I will yield to the chairman. Mr. Garland, have you, or are you investigating who leaked the information that appeared in the Washington Post on october 6, 2022 about the hunter biden investigation . You are saying there was a october 2022 october 6, 2022 the Washington Post wrote a story about the investigation. I am just curious who leaked that information to the Washington Post . I do not know the answer. Was it referred to the Inspector General . Do you know that . I do not want my answer to suggest that there is or isnt an investigation. I know that the Inspector General sent a letter to congress explaining that he had an ongoing assessment with respect to the whistleblower charges. I dont know if thats what youre referring to. The time has expired. The chair recognizes the gentleman from colorado. Thank you chairman and Ranking Member thank you attorney general for your testimony for appearing before us and for your service to our country. I have respect from my colleague from virginia on the other side of the aisle. I am a bit confused as to why they have zeroed in and focused in on this particular letter in such a myopic way. Your testimony, i wrote down the words, the moment he, meaning the trump appointed u. S. Attorney, mr. Weiss, asked for the authority i gave it to him. That seems pretty straightforward. As you set, the letters that mr. Weiss has written to this committee are publicly available and i encourage anyone watching these hearings to certainly review those. As you said, clearly, they are consistent with each other in terms of reading those letters collectively. I think it is important, stir attorney general, to perhaps talk about your record and your background in light of the various attacks, unfortunately by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. My understanding is that you served as a special assistant to the attorney general of the United States early on in your career, is that right . That was my first job being a law clerk. You first job out of Law School Peers after law clerk. You had a private practice. Yes brees you left that to be a attorney for the u. S. Justice peers thats right, an assistant u. S. Attorney. Taking on organized crime cases, Drug Trafficking cases, violent crimes. I dont know about the organized crime but Drug Trafficking, yes. You served in the department of justice as the principal associate. Deputy attorney general. This was the mid90s. Right. You supervised a range of high profile cases, is that right . Yes. The unit bomber case. Yes. The atlanta olympic bombing. Yes. The Oklahoma City bombing case. Yes. You received praise with respect to the latter investigation of the then republican governor of the state of oklahoma. Yes, he was a very good partner. You are then nominated and appointed to the federal bench, u. S. District court of appeals here in washington, d. C. For the u. S. Court of appeals, yes. Over 20 republican senators voted for your confirmation. I will take your word for it. I think that is correct. You served on the bench for a significant. Of time ultimately becoming chief judge. Correct. You left to return to the Department Justice where you started your career. Yes. You were confirmed into this position that you hold on a bipartisan basis in the senate. Yes. I think it is unfortunate, mr. Attorney general, that mike highly colleagues on the other side of the aisle have inflated questions about various cases that the department has brought with impugning your integrity. I can assure you that the vast majority of the American People do not share their opinion. My constituents, the folks back in colorado are grateful for your lifetime of service that you have given to this country. I recognize that this is, i suspect, a frustrating exercise in terms of this particular hearing because i suspect you would like to be talking about the prevalence of phenol in our communities and the work the department of justice is doing to contradicted. The gun violence in our country and the work that the fbi and other agencies are doing to stop it. My hope is that the next oversight hearing that perhaps that can be the focus of the hearing. I would be remiss if i did not say one note about a rule that the department of justice promulgated. In 2021, march of 2021, i sent a letter to the department of justice requesting that the Department Justice issue a rule regulating stable aliasing races. As you recall there was a shooting in my community, in boulder colorado, 10 coloradans tragically lost their lives including one police officer. The department of justice issued a final rule earlier this year on this topic. Unfortunately my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have made it their mission to overturn this rule. I wonder if you can elaborate on how the rule was drafted and liberated within the department. That horrific event in boulder is one of several examples of use of attachment of a semi automatic pistol to a stabilizing brace intended to permit firing from the shoulder area that violates a congressional statute against short barrel rifles being possessed without registration. Anything under 16 inches. The reason for congress to statute, which i think goes back to the al capone era, is the power of such a weapon and the ability to aim such a weapon from the shoulder. All that was done in this rule was to make clear that if you convert a pistol into a rifle, designed to be fired from the shoulder, you are subject to the registration requirement. Thank you. I yelled back. The attorney general has requested a short break. We will stand in recess for a few minutes and then be back for the remainder of the members questions